The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Jubby]

I don't think the sciences have enough evidence to prove that being gay is linked to genetics. If that were the case, then shouldn't there be a lot more people who are gay?

You bring up a good point... Does anyone know if there is any evidence that supports why heterosexuals are "straight"? Like a straight-gene (for lack of a better phrase)? If we're looking for a justification why we're homosexual, why not heterosexual? It works both ways (sorry, that sounds like a pun, of sorts).

Individuals brought up correctly are taught "how" to love, "how" to act, etc. Not "what". Going out on a limb, that's the vast majority of what happens to us folks.

Gentlemen, you aren't taught to be attracted to the brown haired hour-glass figure woman, or a black haired figure with a bit extra on her . Ladies aren't taught to be attracted to tall, dark, and handsome, or short, pudgy, and bald. So, how does the male or female become attracted to one of the above, regardless of gender? No one knows. I'm sure hormones have something to do with it, but there is no evidence that supports that homosexuality is wrong.

On that last bit, there are people and groups that think homosexuality is wrong. Most of those individuals are brought up to "hate/dislike/disapprove" of them, or anything different. This includes organized religion or politics that take a solid stance against it. This is similar to women as equals 100 years ago, and minorities 50 years ago-- and(unfortunately) in some capacity, today as well. The other folks (which could probably include some of the former) don't understand homosexuality. --- Can a man understand what it's like to be a woman completely? No, because we don't have enough experience in it. Can a heterosexual understand what it's like to be a bisexual, homosexual, or a transgender individual? Again, no, because they do not have sufficient experience.

I think that if someone wants to debate sexuality, they need to do two things; 1) Get off the religion kick as there is no reasoning other than being told "It's wrong", and 2) Be prepared to debate heterosexuality, and the ideas within, equally.

 

[Strittan]

Because gays can't marry and still face horrible abuse and discrimination in a lot of the world. You're right, it shouldn't require a discussion, but the incredible amount of ignorance in this thread, let alone the real world, shows that the discussion still has to be had.

The other interesting thing I've found about homophobic "men" (in quotations because homophobia and being a real man are mutually exclusive) is that they only seem to have a problem with gay guys. They generally all (at least among the homophobes I know) watch lesbian pornography. It's just mind blowingly hypocritical.

We're going to look back on this 50 years from now like we look back on slavery now. It's just such a stupid thing for people to be upset about. It honestly amazes (and disgusts) me that people give this much of a 🤬 about some people liking the same parts they have.

This. 👍

 

[dautolover]

I agree with Noob616...

And I have a question... two of the poll options (the last two) state:

OK for anybody
Nobody's business but the people involved

What the hell is the difference between the two? If it's okay, certainly nobody's business.

 

[dautolover]

... and another question...

Why is homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle"? Human beings have been having sex with people of the same sex since the beginning of time... Seems like the title of the thread treats homosexuality as the "other" lifestyle and heterosexuality as the norm that should be followed...

 

[Swift]

... and another question...

Why is homosexuality an "alternative lifestyle"? Human beings have been having sex with people of the same sex since the beginning of time... Seems like the title of the thread treats homosexuality as the "other" lifestyle and heterosexuality as the norm that should be followed...

Considering heterosexual intercourse produces offspring, I think it's a logical deduction. Doesn't make being gay "wrong". But yeah, it's different.

 

[Pako]

Well....if it's genetics and if "genetically predisposed homosexuals" don't have offspring, eventually that gene would be spread pretty thin and more than likely become dormant. But as others have said, science has yet to determine if genetics plays a roll in homosexuality.

 

[Lucas]

Homophobes for me are worse than paedophiles. I don't believe homophobes are as bad as child molesters, but that's because a child molester is a rapist. A paedophile is just someone who happens to be sexually attracted to children, as long as they don't act on it then they haven't done anything wrong.

Finally someone who understands the difference. 👍

 

[Dennisch]

Finally someone who understands the difference. 👍

Usually you find out someone is a pedophile after he molested a child.Kinda balances it out.

 

[Swift]

Usually you find out someone is a pedophile after he molested a child.Kinda balances it out.

that's true. Child molesting is a disgusting crime while being homosexual is only a crime in some people's eyes.

 

[Joey D]

I was having discussion with a co-worker today and the topic of gay marriage came up. My co-workers is a devout Christian and takes a literally interpretation of the Bible, which is fine by me. The topic of gay marriage came up as we were watching CNN and we got into a little debate about it (it happens all the time, we're still friends though).

At one point something dawned on me: Jesus loved and accepted everyone right? Especially outcasts in society, like those with leprosy, tax collectors, the weak, the poor, etc. In today's society homosexuals could be viewed as outcasts in society, so if Jesus were alive today wouldn't he love and care for them just the same? I'm guessing he probably would since he preached about love and acceptance to all of "God's children", which I take to be everyone on Earth if you believe the Bible.

I can see where people would be against marriage in their church since it is considered a sacrament (maybe that's just Catholicism). But I don't see why it should be prevented anywhere other than in your church organizations. I mean you have the right to accept or deny anyone into your church (although that's not very Christ-like).

I'm just curious though, my co-worker really didn't have an answer for me about it and said I did make a good point. I'm just curious to hear what others have to say.

 

[PeterJB]

Jesus never talked about homosexuality because it was such a taboo subject at the time. Most christians would agree that it is fine to have homosexual desires, but not to act upon them. Though they would feel the same about a heterosexual person acting upon their own desires out of wedlock. Personally I don't see why a loving god would condemn it, though in the christian world there are two options: celibacy, or marriage.

 

[PeterJB]

Sorry for the double post. I wrote this on my phone so I'll attempt something better when I next have access to a computer.

 

[Dennisch]

Jesus never talked about homosexuality because it was such a taboo subject at the time. Most christians would agree that it is fine to have homosexual desires, but not to act upon them. Though they would feel the same about a heterosexual person acting upon their own desires out of wedlock. Personally I don't see why a loving god would condemn it, though in the christian world there are two options: celibacy, or marriage.

At that time, it seemed to be a normal thing, just like marrying your sister, to keep the gold in the family. It's today's religious people who need to lighten up about the subject. We are all human beings. Same blood, brains and bones.

To add something, if Jesus could come back to earth (if) and he would see the history of christianity, he would facepalm himself.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

At that time, it seemed to be a normal thing, just like marrying your sister, to keep the gold in the family. It's today's religious people who need to lighten up about the subject. We are all human beings. Same blood, brains and bones.

It was the norm in Rome which is probably one reason the Pharisees saw Gentiles as dogs. Jesus didn't deal with homosexuality because it wasn't the sin of the Pharisees. He make it clear He was revealing their sin and not necessary the sin of the Roman rulers.

Especially outcasts in society, like those with leprosy, tax collectors, the weak, the poor, etc. In today's society homosexuals could be viewed as outcasts in society,...

but homosexuals are not outcasts at least not in America. There are a lot of wealthy and powerful homosexuals which is why they grab politician's attention. Even Bush SR back off on homosexuals when he found out how much they finance his campaign.

 

[Joey D]

but homosexuals are not outcasts at least not in America. There are a lot of wealthy and powerful homosexuals which is why they grab politician's attention. Even Bush SR back off on homosexuals when he found out how much they finance his campaign.

All an outcast is is someone with a social stigma, I think homosexuality in America fits that pretty well.

And yes, there are wealthy homosexuals in America, but there are also a lot of poor and homeless ones too. It's estimated 20%-40% (depending on what numbers you believe) of the homeless teen and young adult population is either homosexual or transgender.

 

[Dotini]

To add something, if Jesus could come back to earth (if) and he would see the history of christianity, he would facepalm himself.

Do you really think so? Oh sure, it has become a little corrupted, but just look at the numbers and staying power! With it's offshoots, Protestants, Islam and Mormonism, the religion of Abraham dominates other world religions by a mile. What more do you want?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you really think so? Oh sure, it has become a little corrupted, but just look at the numbers and staying power! With it's offshoots, Protestants, Islam and Mormonism, the religion of Abraham dominates other world religions by a mile. What more do you want?

Respectfully,
Steve

They can't all be right.

 

[Prosthetic]

To add something, if Jesus could come back to earth (if) and he would see the history of christianity, he would facepalm himself.

No, he would tell everyone to stop arguing over such miniscule problems, drop everything they are doing and blindly prepare for the impending Apocalypse.

 

[Dotini]

They can't all be right.

IMHO, they are all wrong, with Zoroaster and the Dualists (not the rock band!) getting it closer to right. But they are no longer with us.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[dautolover]

Considering heterosexual intercourse produces offspring, I think it's a logical deduction. Doesn't make being gay "wrong". But yeah, it's different.

That that doesn't mean that it's an alternative lifestyle. Surely, there's something natural in the whole aspect of reproduction. But I think that, given our use of birth control and what not, we humans have effectively separated the issue of reproduction from sex, to the point that we can have sex without actually wishing to procreate.

Maybe I'll agree with you if you said something like: homosexuality is an alternative way to rear children. That is certainly true. But that isn't the main point of the thread.

To add something, if Jesus could come back to earth (if) and he would see the history of christianity, he would facepalm himself.

but homosexuals are not outcasts at least not in America. There are a lot of wealthy and powerful homosexuals which is why they grab politician's attention. Even Bush SR back off on homosexuals when he found out how much they finance his campaign.

I'm sure that there are many homosexuals who aren't doing well financially.

And a wealthy and powerful homosexual is still outcast from wealthy and powerful heterosexuals.

 

[PeterJB]

At that time, it seemed to be a normal thing, just like marrying your sister, to keep the gold in the family. It's today's religious people who need to lighten up about the subject. We are all human beings. Same blood, brains and bones.

To add something, if Jesus could come back to earth (if) and he would see the history of christianity, he would facepalm himself.

I'll attempt a more thorough answer now that I have access to a PC.

The general Christian view (which isn't my personal view) is that marriage is a holy sacrament created by God for a man and a woman. This is one reason why same-sex marriage it is opposed by the Roman Catholic Church for example, anal sex is also classed as sodomy, because our bodies have been design for Vaginal sex. The Bible is slightly vague on the subject. Most people refer to the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, even though no specific sin is given as the reason for their destruction, and the famous verse "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination"., as being against homosexuality.

Some passages can be interpreted as referring to homosexual relationships, such the possibly sexual relationship between David and Jonathan. The key passage though is thou shalt not commit adultery. So regardless of orientation, there are two options: Celibacy, or marriage. Most Christians are fine with people having homosexual desires, but not with them acting upon them.

There have been a few homosexual clergy in the Church of England, but they've generated controversy if they've been in a openly gay relationship, as if clergyman are not married they are expected to be celibate. However the Church of England appears to allow same-sex partnerships for laypersons.

Jesus never said anything about it, but he always spoke of love and equality between people, and as Joey D pointed out, he loved and accepted outcasts in society. One passage in Matthew can also be interpreted as him affirming a gay couple. Some Christians see marriage as a union of two people, not just between men and women. The Church of Sweden practises same-sex marriages, most Liberal Christians express support for it, as does Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Personally I'm very divided on this. As a bisexual, I believe we should all be treated with equal dignity and respect, and I don't see why a loving God would condemn me for desires I cannot control. I have no desire to marry a man, and the thought of anal sex isn't particular enticing to me. I have these desires, but I haven't acted upon them, and may never.

 

[Dennisch]

See, even christianity doesn't know what to do with it.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Usually you find out someone is a pedophile after he molested a child.Kinda balances it out.

My point was that not all paedophiles are child molesters, and it's only the child molesters and pornographers and others who act on their urges who are doing wrong; just like not all zoophiles engage in bestiality. I was just nit picking with terminology, and molesting a child is disgusting, as is rape in general.

The other part of my point is that if they (paedophiles and zoophiles) never act on it they'll still feel it, but unless they tell people, which in our society is unlikely, no one will ever know.

As a bisexual, I believe

That you are lucky. Why do some people get to be (noticeably) bi and the rest of us don't?! It's not fair! Then again, I'm quite asexual myself, so I'm lucky in that I don't have to worry about it.

 

[Encyclopedia]

My point was that not all paedophiles are child molesters, and it's only the child molesters and pornographers and others who act on their urges who are doing wrong; just like not all zoophiles engage in bestiality. I was just nit picking with terminology, and molesting a child is disgusting, as is rape in general.

There's a difference between pedophiles and zoophiles in my opinion though. Zoophilia isn't necessarily wrong to act out like pedophilia. It would only be wrong if abuse was involved. Strange maybe, but not wrong.

 

[Dennisch]

There's a difference between pedophiles and zoophiles in my opinion though. Zoophilia isn't necessarily wrong to act out like pedophilia. It would only be wrong if abuse was involved. Strange maybe, but not wrong.

You think an animal enjoys it when some perv sticks his man-sausage in and starts pounding away?

 

[Encyclopedia]

You think an animal enjoys it when some perv sticks his man-sausage in and starts pounding away?

I think it's a possibility yes. Dependeing on the situation. A mare for example probably wouldn't even notice it. A bit like waving a pen in a cave.

Also I doubt a dog cares where it licks peanutbutter from.

 

[Roger the Horse]

There's a difference between pedophiles and zoophiles in my opinion though. Zoophilia isn't necessarily wrong to act out like pedophilia. It would only be wrong if abuse was involved. Strange maybe, but not wrong.

An animal that isn't a human or another ape that has been trained in sign language will find it very difficult to give consent. A child molester is worse than someone who engages in bestiality because a human can say no, but it will be highly unlikely that a young child would understand what was going on or how to say no, or what to do about it after it had happened, making child molesters especially creepy rapists. If they go for older children then the victim may have a greater chance of dealing with the situation in an appropriate way (eg. knocking the molester unconscious and then calling the police), but they will likely be smaller than the aggressor and have difficulty fighting them off; and will also be more likely to feel to upset / scared / be to uninformed to inform those who need to know and can deal with the situation by putting the molester in a mincing machine. Child molesters are creepy perverts who deserve to be castrated repeatedly, bestialities are strange, paedophiles and zoophiles have the potential to become child molesters or bestialities.

On a related note, I learnt this week that the first head of OFSTED (the British school / care / probably a load of other stuff too inspection body, or Offensive Fascist Slanderous T:censored:s who Exist in Denial of free will on the part of those being educated or cared for.) was a Paedophile.

 

[PeterJB]

That you are lucky. Why do some people get to be (noticeably) bi and the rest of us don't?! It's not fair! Then again, I'm quite asexual myself, so I'm lucky in that I don't have to worry about it.

I don't follow, you wish you were bisexual?

 

[Liquid]

I don't follow, you wish you were bisexual?

Or as an old teacher of mine used to say, "greedy".

 

[Roger the Horse]

I don't follow, you wish you were bisexual?

I wish to be asexual, which I pretty much am, but I don't personally understand why somebody would want to be heterosexual or homosexual when bisexuality is obviously better.